"Writing is a skill, not a talent, and thus one's ability as a writer can be improved by thoughtful effort. The problem with some people is that they graduate college as good writers, experience early success on account of that, and thus never devote themselves diligently to the relentless quest for improvement that could make them great writers."

Monday, June 29, 2009

PREVIOUSLY: Says Professor William Jacobson regarding Wonkette's despicable treatment of Sarah Palin's year-old son, Trig. And I would amend the professor's sentiments only to improve them by saying, "It takes gay men to stoop this low."

Yeah, I just wrote that. And put it on the Internet.

We could reference Susan Sontag's Notes On Camp here, or we could invite comment from various rogue lesbians -- Tammy Bruce, Camille Paglia, Cynthia Yockey -- who from time to time have criticized gay culture in a way that certainly cannot be denounced as "homophobic." But rather than make an argumentum ad vericundiam, let me defend my own argument on the basis of personal observation:

Gay men have mother issues. This has been a subject of much controversy. Freud's view of homosexuality as a species of mental illness, and the resulting conception of homosexuality as a psychopathology requiring therapeutic intervention, has wrought much mischief over the years. Yet Freud was certainly correct to think of homosexuality as an matter of development with roots in early childhood, particularly in the parent-child relationship. No need to indulge in elaborate symbolism or references to Greek mythology (Freud was full of crap about that) to say this: It is obvious that most gay men can't get past the "female = Mom" hurdle in their minds. We could discuss that at length, but this is a blog, not an advanced psychology text, so let's move on.

Gay men are gynophobic. Which is to say, they are repulsed by the basic physical equipment of female sexuality. They've got no admiration for your vajayjay, ladies. Sometimes when I've shared this observation with gay guys, they deny disdaining distaff genitalia. It isn't their hatred of nookie that makes them gay, they protest, but rather their phallophilia. Methinks they protest too much, considering how scornfully gay men speak about "fish" and "fag hags" when none of the hags are around to overhear. But again this is a blog post not a psych text, so we'll move on.

Gay male culture is profoundly misogynistic. One of the most absurd claims of feminism is that the fashion industry's mistreatment of women -- its depiction of them as "sex objects" who are only attractive when young, thin, beautiful, glammed-up and dressed like streetwalkers -- is a manifestation of oppressive patriarchal sexism. This is a lie that could only deceive anyone so stupid they don't notice that all men in the fashion industry are gay. To the extent that the Vogue and Cosmo are misognystic hate literature (as all Women's Studies majors are taught), it is because they represent the typical gay man's view of women. A blog post, not a textbook, and we move on.

The normalization of gay culture requires the derogation of traditional female roles. Let the student of coalition politics cease to wonder about the basis of the tactical alliance between feminists and the notoriously male-dominated gay-rights movement. One reason lesbians like Cynthia Yockey become disenchanted with the Official Gay Movement is the recognition that they're riding in the back of the Equality Bus, and that the feminist "sisterhood" has made a cynical deal with the misogynistic gay-male Devil.

We'll extend the rest of the argument from that last point. If they're wrong about nearly everything else, feminists are essentially correct in saying that in traditional societies women's status is dependent upon their success in the wife-mother role. Let a woman gain fame and fortune, let her amass wealth and power and, in a traditional society, these achievements will not win her widespread admiration unless she is also a devoted wife and mother.

That there are in contemporary America successful female "role models" who are single and childless (e.g., Oprah) is testimony to how far we are from being a traditional society. Yet it is still the fact that the overwhelming majority of young women, imagining their futures, do not dream of reaching midlife as barren spinsters. (Yeah, I just wrote that. And put it on the Internet.)

Given the choice between being Oprah and Sarah Palin, then, most young women would rather be like Sarah -- and not merely because Todd is such a tasty hunk of prime beef.

The best examination of the feminist movement's implacable hostility toward traditional women who prefer the wife-and-mother role is Carolyn Graglia's Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism. Graglia argues quite persuasively that contemporary feminism's organizational objective is to make the traditional family -- Dad as workplace breadwinner, Mom as domestic goddess -- an impossibility.

Many gay men are eager to assist that project, because just as the traditional family model celebrates a certain kind of woman, it also celebrates a certain kind of man -- the kind of man the gay man is emphatically not. Furthermore, the domestic wife-mother type of woman is a universal object of horror and ridicule in gay culture.

So we return to Ken Layne and Wonkette's vicious hostility toward Sarah Palin, a hostility quite sufficient to encompass even one-year-old Trig. Is Ken Layne actively and exclusively homosexual? I don't know, and it's irrelevant to the point that this type of hostility toward Palin -- a hostility focused laser-like on her maternal qualities -- is a classic expression of gay-male "camp" culture.

A hetero swine like Letterman makes "slutty flight attendant" jokes about Palin's looks. Gay men make tasteless jokes about Palin as a mother. This is a blog, not a textbook, but if you've read this far, you can generalize from that observation to consider why Andrew Sullivan has spend months mucking around the fever swamps of Trig-trutherism.

Now, let's talk "homophobia." When discussing trends -- in politics, economics, art, whatever -- it becomes necessary to generalize, to speak broadly about categories of phenomena. The social critic is required to treat human beings in this general and categorical manner and, in so doing, risks offending the subjects of discussion.

If we are discussing gangsta rap, for example, we might generalize by saying that gangsta rappers celebrate criminality, brutality toward women, and to make much of the classic material symbols of pimp life -- Benzes, Perignon, da Benjamins, bling, et cetera. This invites the hiphop fan to cite some outlier example, e.g., MC Geek, the gangsta coder whose raps are about HTML, Java and Linxux platforms.

This argument-by-exception technique -- where all generalizations are impermissible because in any categories there will be outliers and exceptions who do not exemplify the categorical norm -- is the enemy of sound reasoning. I am certain that there must be hillbillies with good teeth who've never played a banjo or touched a drop of moonshine; it is nevertheless the case that if you're looking for moonshine-swilling banjo-pickers with bad teeth, your search will be more productive in West Virginia than in Rhode Island. (Don Surber hasn't linked me in a while.)

So it is with my gay friends. Just last week, I was hanging out at a Reason magazine event with the proudly gay Bruce Majors and the proudly lesbian Cynthia Yockey. They were the epitome of courtesy and hospitality not only toward me, but also toward my 20-year daughter. whom I'd picked up at Reagan Airport that afternoon and dragged along for the event.

Does Bruce fit the description of the Oedipal-conflicted misogynistic gynophobe hostile to the traditional family? Well, we could argue about gynophobia and Bruce would say no, he's simply a phallophile, but Bruce is a capital-L Libertarian, which means, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Libertarianism means, or at least ought to mean, that your preferences and prejudices are of no political consequence. If Bruce is prejudiced against the vajayjay, that's his own business. And if my own preference for the vajayjay borders on the monomanical -- I'm a father of six, after all -- that's between me and Mrs. Other McCain.

The anti-Palin agenda of Wonkette therefore expresses the attitude of an extremely un-libertarian type of gay man, a man who is not at all like my friend, Bruce Majors.

So whether or not Ken Layne is actually gay, there can be no doubt that Ken Layne is a vicious cocksucker.

135 comments:

I suggest everyone also make sure they read the comments at Professor Williams' blog to get an eyeful of how the left can delude themselves into thinking it's quite alright to go after a political target through her children. (Just so long as that political target is not a Democrat, of course.)

(Those that already bemoan the degeneration of the Western mind, should probably steer clear of the comments because it's only going to make things much, much worse.)

Excellent. It all ties together how the left is not about choices but about choosing to be like them. Modern feminists only want choices for women who choose a career and "independance". The gay movement doesn't want you to accept them for being gay, they want you to worship them for being gay and oppress those who don't. Look at the attacks on Prejean and Palin. Two independant women who should be examples of the victories for women's rights. Instead they are attacked and demonized.

Thanks for the incredibly weak and self-serving pop-psych analysis there, RS McPaddlewackers, but has it not crossed your mind that the reason the internet savages are photoshopping the Palin/Trig photo is because it pisses you all off and compels you to write such embarrassingly stupid garbage?

Btw, SomethingAwful is a lot of things, but a gathering spot for gay men with mother issues? Not so much. You won't find a more ruthless, and indifferent, group of pranksters this side of 4Chan. They do what they do because it's funny, and that is their bottom line. No idiotic psycho-analysis needed.

It's not something I had previously given thought to you, but your comments regarding the preponderance of gay man in the fashion industry led me to think the following:

The runway model as a hyper-naturally thin woman with no hips and no bust is the product of gay men, either consciously or subconsciously, trying to "de-feminize" the female body and make it as male as possible.

I've heard more than one commenter note that these women have the figures of a "14-year old boy." Now I realize that it wasn't an accident.

Heterosexual males have, for as long as I've been aware, always complained that we are being unfairly targetted by women who claim that we are the ones who have set up an impossible beauty standard which no "normal" woman is capable of achieving. It's not us who are the problem. We prefer women with curves. It's the gay men in the midst who don't.

The left is always saying how they are the ones that love and protect minorities and women. Unless said minorities or women don't march to their drums. Let a minority or woman get half a beat out of step and they must be destroyed.

I'm in agreement with all of your post except for one part. You used the one slang term for a female body part that nauseates me so bad it almost (OK, well no, not really. Work with me here.) makes me want to become a phallophile myself (you know, other than my own...). Yech, I hate that word.

"if you're looking for moonshine-swilling banjo-pickers with bad teeth . . ." .I thought for sure that was going to end up in Stacy's native state. Overall, this is an interesting strategy to draw fire off of Trig and on to Stacy; it's an incredibly provocative march on gay pride. NTTAWWT.

You won't find a more ruthless, and indifferent, group of pranksters this side of 4Chan. They do what they do because it's funny, and that is their bottom line. No idiotic psycho-analysis needed.

mantis, if you think ugly, over-the-top bashing of children and women is "funny", then perhaps psycho-analysis is just what is needed. I suggest some medications for the misanthropic social awkwardness as well.

The Palin bashers ain't all bad. Every time those losers get nasty with photoshop, they're directly responsible for increasing Sarahpac donations in a BIG way. July 1 is the pac's first public report date. Give the good guv a few bucks before Wednesday to annoy these lowlifes.

I think you have missed an important aspect. Many gays, I believe,are simply members of a social sub-group, a sub-culture. They are there for the cameraderi of that particular urban tribe. It's just like being a UK Soccer club supporter. It's your team.

Only a very small percentage, by my reckoning, are truly "homosexual" in the sense that they are emotionally and erotically attracted to their own sex, and the opposite leaves them cold.

It is so refreshing to read words from somebody who understands all this. Anybody who lives in a family with gay men will understand.

I have a gay uncle (bottom), another who died of AIDS from a wild gay life with multiple partners, and another older uncle who probably is gay but controls himself. Yes, Mr. McCain pegged it right on about the overbearing mother effect.

I'm divorced now with a six-year old son who lives with his mother in MI, who is very angry, belligerent, mean, controlling, basically your stereotype. Several of the signs are already showing.

It will be a miracle if my son is NOT gay and not messed up psychologically.

And we are insensitive when we voice these legitimate concerns for 'gasp' our very own children.

I would suggest gays and lesbians have father issues. They rarely if ever have formed positive bonds with fathers - fathers who are often emotionally or physically absent, or passive or docile compared to stronger mothers.

Hence gays' life long desire for male approval and the hatred of women (subliminally directed at their mums who managed to get some sort of approval from their fathers).

Yes lesbians also hate women - only want to get their approval to get back at their mums for winning the approval of their fathers.

I blame feminists - and their limp wristed snaggy male supporters - who totally destroyed any concept of true manhood and womanhood. And who have done so much to beat up on men, and fatherhood.

As the right continues to fall apart intellectually you're left with a rag-tag group of angry white men making these kinds of bizarre and hateful rants that serve no other purpose than to hammer another nail in the coffin of movement conservatism. You're choking yourselves with your own hands. Thank you.

Mr. McCain, you ask your readers to accept that the writings of Ken Layne are wild, over the top, and unacceptable for the standards of decency. While you turn around and write a vicious, hurtful and callous diatribe against him and all homosexuals. You are wrong, of course, on all counts. Whatever the writings of Mr. Layne may claim, he criticizes Sarah Palin because she proves time and again that she is purely a self serving, shallow, and media-starved politician. She thrusts herself in the limelight and uses her own children as props in the performance to land her on the national stage. Whether it is the Republican National Convention where she parades her youngest child up on stage, or the countless magazine articles where she drags her daughter and her ex boyfriend through the mud as if she is auditioning for the Jerry Springer show. If Sarah Palin herself does not consider her own children off limits, then they are certainly not out of bounds for the media to criticize such.

I blame gays for just about everything. It's just easier that way! LOL. All the gays and their supporters are Democrats, so pretty much anything that's gone wrong since the 50s is the fault of the Democrats and their homosexual agenda. Why this is news to anyone is a mystery to me, but thanks for "coming out" (heh) and saying it like a real man, RSM!

Let's think about our current problems. Two words: Barney Frank. He's the reason for our current recession, him and him alone. Do we have to weigh his loafers? I don't think so. Then we have Obama. Soros, ACORN, Goddamn America (remember how "open" the good Reverend Wrong was), all a front for Gay Marriage. Even division on the Republican side started when some on Our Side started ceding ground on that issue.

So Robert, I look forward to seeing more of your exposay about the homosexual "death to america" agenda and their enablers in the liberal soros-run media!

Ken Layne is hilarious, and was right about Palin before she got shat onto the national stage. You, Stacy, (very butch!) are emphatically NOT. Do you buy wrongness in bulk? Keep this sort of crap up though...it's the best way to keep your party an embarassing rural/wingnut rump, thus ensuring a permanent Democratic majority. The best summation of the walking joke that is Palin is a joke:What is the difference between Palin's mouth and her vagina? Not everything that comes out of her vagina is retarded.

Hatred of Governor Sarah Palin stems from the fact that liberals cannot express the same level of blinding hate for George W. Bush because he is no longer the President.

As the Obama Administration does more and more to alienate the unhinged, hateful left (members of which are of all orientations, genders, races, etc.), they will gradually replace whatever they hate now with whatever is convenient several years from now.

The irrational is always irrational, and any attempt to understand it is a waste of time.

Welcome to the Internet. That's what we do here. When an idiot tries to paint a doctored photo attacking the strange relationship Palin has with undersexed, old, white conservative men as an attack on her baby, she invites exactly that kind of response. This is what the internet does, takes things to the next level (and porn, of course). The same internet that gives voice to a bigoted blowhard like the Other McCain, gives voice to legions of jokesters who like to lampoon uptight political figures and 'shock' them with all the new ways in which they can be lampooned.

And please, as a poster a few up said, donate to the Palin PAC. 20% of republicans want her to run for president in 2012, along with 100% of democrats.

I also wonder why if we are going to live in the UN-PC world of generalizations, why not some positive ones about gay men. To the extent that gay men might have mother issues, it doesn't stem from hatred but from veneration. And the veneration of their mothers leads them to venerate women in general. Yes, some gay men are sexist; but some are on the forefront of gender equality issues.

Or since you cited Camille Paglia, why not cite her claim that for reasons unknown, gay men have disproportionately built the Western Canon. Bruce Bawer has also written about this. For some strange reason, it's the gay brain that is more likely to give us geniuses like Cole Porter (John Derbyshire's choice for greatest "human accomplisher" on the 20th Century.)

That disproportionate talent in the gay community leads to gays flourishing in capitalist society, even if the face of bigotry. Gays don't seem to be an underrepresented group in good jobs. And indeed every single gayborhood I can think of is in prime real estate territory. Stereotypically gays have the most well kept houses and lawns. They make for great neighbors (at least the market seems to tell us they do by real estate values).

Ah, you lefty's here are all about "Sarah put herself out there, and used her kids as 'props' so it's okay to attack her through her kid's" talking point.

How, exactly, did she do anything different than, say Barack Obama and Joe Biden? You all like to point to her bringing her kidds up and holding Trig at the RNC last year, like it was unique and unprecendented.

All last year, we heard, even from Obama himself, the "family was off limits". Did you listen? Not in Palin's case. But you sure did rush to Michelle Obama's side when anyone said anything mildly critical - and she actively "put herself out there" and campaigned - CAMPAIGNED on his behalf.

And of course, nothing about his two daughters, even though they've been up on stage as "props," too.

Yet you use, or agree to the use of, a 1-year old baby to attack someone, for POLITICS. WTF is wrong with you?

You are DESPICABLE, all of you.Nothing gets in the way of your objective. Not consistency, not principle, and certainly not decency.

A tasteless, offensive joke is a tasteless, offensive joke. Whether it's making fun of autism (you did it in high school, admit it) or making fun of homosexuality (you did it in high school, admit it), it comes from the same place: A desire to cross a line to provoke a laugh or outrage or both. When right wingers provoke censure from the left for their own forays into this kind of humor (and the irony of McCain's censuring of the Wonkette poster is that McCain is obviously hoping to provoke a similar response from the other side with the gay baiting), they call it "political correctness run amok." The only problem with the Wonkette post is that it's tasteless. The problem with McCain's post is that it doesn't appear to be a joke.

You don't actually think you have any gay friends, do you? If they have any respect for themselves, I hope they're no longer consider you a friend after reading the hateful bullshit you believe about us.

You might also want to meet some gay men younger than 45. It's true that 30 years ago (and earlier), when the social and cultural space in which you could safely be gay was much smaller and more fragile, lots of gay men did seem to think that their maintaining their own social identity required rejecting women. But that time has passed -- talk to younger gay men who grew up with at least some gay role models and some support from their friends/family, and you'll find that kind of old-fashioned woman-bashing to be a thing of the past. The last time I heard a gay man under 40 use the word "fish," new fewer than three other gay men told him to shut the fuck up. (Which isn't to say that all older gay men are misogynists -- there are plenty who are not. But your observations are even more comically wrong when you try to apply them to younger men.)

Well, sounds like you don't like the gay sub-culture. Then you should be supporting the repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask-Don't Tell and welcoming homosexuals into the mainstream. The less you try to marginalize homosexuals, the fewer vicious cocksuckers there will be.

Gross, bigoted, and teeming with the sort of sweeping generalizations that are the antithesis of intelligent discourse. You're a sad, prideful person, McCain, not just too weak to commit to the real work of loving your fellow humans but reveling in your weakness.

When your ideas are neither insightful, accurate nor interesting, then negative attention is better than no attention at all. And time spent fuming about your cultural resentment on the internet certainly beats time actually doing something that might make the world a better place. Some people teach kids to read or help the elderly with yardwork, RSM just plays his side of the snark divide doing excatly the kind of risibly unserious social commentary that he criticizes in this post. Why not instead put your energy into something that doesn't simply highlight the shallow depth of your thinking?

I'm a straight woman with kids, married over 20 years, and I think Sarah Palin's mothering has not been strong. She set up no real coverage for her teenage daughter when she, as Governor, was out of town, and taught her daughter nothing about birth control. Then after she got pregnant she paraded her in front of a national audience. After that, she took her issues with her grandchild's father to the public.

First, regarding your assertion about fashion: Vogue is edited by a woman, and if you check its masthead, you will find it's editorial staff is mostly women. Women dress for other women - not for other men, gay or otherwise.

Second - the story of Trig was rather odd - but I will agree to the extent that I think we should all just move on. There is way too much (or too little) in her biography to pick on without having to single out a child, and I don't think the left's contempt for her has much to do as much with her gender as it does with the fact that she is a stone idiot who spouts trite right-wing talking points without any clue as to what anything she says actually means. (I know, by the way, a few gay republican men who just love her, quite the same way they still adore Liza and Barbra).

While this post should be a little less bating than it is, I think you have made some interesting suppositions but reached the wrong conclusion in almost every way. Additionally, I must say that the "identify an outlier as proof" is rampant everywhere including here. See gay man adopts then molests and pimps children comment (like that’s normal activity or never happens with straight people) or I have gay friends but they are libertarian with a cap L (so that shows ur not homophobic or something cuz you get along with gays that are exactly like you).

Truthfully speaking straight/male/white/etc hegemony really did create feminism/pride/cr/immigration reform movements and the cultures that developed in parallel. If these groups had not been repressed in the first place (or were given equality immediately once realized that it didn’t exist), no movements would have happened. Attempts to isolate a group that’s different, for whatever reason (usually to maintain some kind of political control, leverage, or religious zealotry), and then point out all the reasons how and why (ie this post) is what allows “gay culture” to even exist and allows thoughtful people like you to make “generalizations” like you know something about most or all gays.

A gay fashion conspiracy is absurd. Really skinny teen and early twenties female models may in fact look like 14 year old boys, but they also look like 14 year old girls, because both sexes look the same when they are pre-pubescent. The fashion industry has a thing for youth, not men, and that is a reflection of our cultures obsession with youth, not gay conspiracy. Why straight men seem to like really young women (who look like 14 yo boys) is the real question. Women are more fertile a little later in life, so why the obsession?

Gay men may indeed have some “developmental” influence from childhood, but it is resoundingly father/daddy issues, and not mother issues, that are the influence. Crappy fathers who leave their mothers and the “sanctity” of their marriage is in fact almost ubiquitous in these limited cases (see Sapwolf above for example). However, a large majority of gay men have normal, happy childhoods and know they are gay from a young age.. In these cases, I would have to say the “developmental” aspects are very minimalized. Born or made, neither is bad and anyone should be able to choose whatever they want. Your religion should have no effect on that decision. The idea that a person would not choose to be gay is stupid because.. why not? It’s a pretty good life from where I’m standing.. The assumption that everyone wants to be a straight, white man is the most demeaning prejudice (and far more detrimental to gay rights than flat out bigotry) and one of my chief problems with liberal identity politics and the born gay argument in general.

Some workplace protection (not a lot, who wants to work where they aren’t welcome, perhaps right to sue for wage/unemployment difference for 1-2 months and/or increased unemployment ins for employer as fine), immigration reform (anyone should be able to sponsor anyone they choose-friend, partner, wife, family- and the government should have no say in who I choose to live with in my country- of course some limits are reasonable), and the abolishment of all marriage subsidies (tax breaks, protective, legal- most easily granted by individual contracts that are already fairly standard, and immigration) so the government is out of marriage and does not have a position on it. Everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of marriage status or who I inherit money from. These are the things that need to be done, and gay marriage can go back to where it should be, a couple’s/church’s choice to partake.

Wow. There are so many antiquated, easily refuted generalities in your post that I would guess -- were I not somewhat acquainted with your previous bilious diatribes -- that you were writing it as a joke.

On a stylisitic note, your writing has the pretentious air of someone trying to impress better-educated or simply smarter company. Ooh, such big words. Ooh, such convoluted sentence structure. Ooh, such daring jabs at an underclass. Meanwhile the rest of us simply turn away and roll our eyes.

I agree with the above poster; keep it up, Mr. McCain! Your words sound revile as the sun sets on your petty worldview.

Wait im lost. How does any of this have to do with Sarah Palin being a tabloid joke/ talentess halfwit? Is he saying because shes a MILF, gay men are apt to dislike her? If so, who do I see about getting 5 minutes of my life back?

I think the reason Sarah Palin is ridiculed, along with her children, is that she made them campaign props repeatedly and therefore are fair game. The McCain kids weren't part of the narrative, and so have escaped the media's glare. She chose to expose them and by doing so invited comment. Her life is a soap opera, Americans love to watch, but they wouldn't dream of electing the star of their soap president. If she wants to be taken seriously, she should shut up about the trivial stories and pictures. The whole sympathy factor is not working for her. Don't know if she can ever be taken seriously, mostly because she dismissed the cities, and blue states as not the real america. Her views do not unite america, it pits some citizens against other citizens. I think one is supposed to create an enemy from outside of america to unite people behind you.

You know what? You're right. The treatment of Trig Palin has been absolutely despicable. I mean, what kind of a mother uses a newborn baby as a campaign prop and a tool to rally a political base? What kind of a sick individual parades their family around and flaunts her own daughter's high school sluttiness (but she all better now!) to the entire nation as a means of advancing her agenda?

And what kind of special stupidity (or dishonesty) does it take to completely ignore what Palin has done to her own family in the furtherance of her political ambitions but then to complain so loudly when (after she put them in play) others respond in kind?

But by all means, please, PLEASE nominate her for President. And PLEASE don't throw me in that briar patch!

What kind of adult man refers to a woman's genetalia as "vajayjay"? What sort of relationship did you have with your mother that would allow you to say "cocksucker" but not "vagina". Methinks you doth protest too much. You can admit that you're gay...no one will mind.

If being a non-libertarian gay man earns me the scorn of Robert Sigmund McCain, I may have to turn gay! Let's see, according to Dr. McCain, I'll need to develop some mommy issues, go to work for the fashion industry, and become repulsed by my wife's vajayjay (that last one's a toughie). Difficult but doable, at least in a world built upon a laughably predictable, paint-by-number understanding of human complexity.

I read Wonkette, and they ridicule the way Sarah Palin has exploited her children as campaign props and to feed the outrage machine, and thus her worth as a person generally, not as a mother per se. fwiw, carry on with your bilefest.

Attacking women or downs babies is not camp, and if you were actually familiar with Sontag's "Notes on Camp" you'd understand that. As Sontag writes (this is point #56 if you'd like to check your copy), "Camp taste is a kind of love, love for human nature. It relishes, rather than judges, the little triumphs and awkward intensities of 'character.' Camp taste identifies with what it is enjoying. People who share this sensibility are not laughing at the thing they label as 'a camp,' they're enjoying it. Camp is a tender feeling."

Yikes. That post was... epic. Not all that accurate, not well sourced (he makes the point many time over that this is "a blog post, not a textbook" [to which I would reply "and it shows"]), and despite a spirited and slightly shrill attempt to seem non-partisan (Look! Look! I have "gay friends" too! That makes anything I write OK!), the entire piece comes off as... silly. The audacity to paraphrase Freud in what (we are repeatedly reminded) is "not an advanced psychology text" strikes me as impossibly arrogant, especially as he dismisses an entire body of Freud's work with the next sentance. Not only armchair/pop psychology, but cherry-picker pop psych. Classy. The entire post also stinks of a fear of books and literature (something which is itself akin to mental illness).

The attempt to defend sweeping generalizations (of the most crude and ignorant kind, no less) in support of an argument/attack targeting individuals is likewise a feat of staggering arrogance. Such oversimplification is the true "enemy of sound reasoning" (something I doubt Robbie was really interested in in the first place), a desperate search for an Easy Button of discourse. So much more straight-forward to lump all of one's opponents into easily-regarded groups! So much less work to think about them or their individual motivations and stories and causes and arguments! We may as well generalize all heterosexuals (notice how desperately Robbie clings to membership of our clique regarding his "preference for the vajayjay") as being ignorant blowhards who shun corroboration, with this blog post as evidence.

The best thing I can say about this column is that it is easily dismissed. It is one man's "personal observation", and can be weighed (lightly) as such. The day we consider this to be great journalism is the day our society falls.

I haven't seen the kinds of hysterics (nice word!) I am seeing here since the death of Liberace.

So much equivocating over attacking a baby, amazing how these lefties have absolutely no morals. First a 14 year old, they clapped with glee, then a special needs baby, they smacked their weenies around in absolute joy.

It's pretty obvious you were trying to build up to be able to say "vicious cocksucker" by making arguments that sound reasoned and intelligent, but you fall flat. You make no reasonable connection between the Wonkette, gay men being a marauding group of vicious cocksuckers...in fact, you utilize the "Trig" fiasco to try to make an end-all pscyhological condemnation of gay men.

And in that, you are a loser.

I wrote a blog entry responding to your entire piece here at http://www.truthupfront.com/2009/06/other-mccain-on-gays.html

@thirteen28: Nope. I take my orders from the gay liberal illuminati. You haven't kept up on your dues, so they sent me after you. Alas and alack, you've seen through my disguise!*vanishes in a puff of lavender smoke*

It was high time someone put that on the Internet. Jesus fucking Christ, if Palin had a full-term abortion and put the baby in a Mason jar full of piss she would be a hero to these monsters. It's time to banish them back to the shadows and fringes of society. This species of left-winger has no place in polite society or serious politics.

I read Wonkette, and they ridicule the way Sarah Palin has exploited her children as campaign props and to feed the outrage machine, and thus her worth as a person generally, not as a mother per se.

The same way BHO paraded his kids out with his shaved wookie of a wife?

Or his last photo opp where he ran out for ice cream with the kids and stopped for pictures along the way. As Mark Knoller of CBS News so gleefully covered on his tweeter feed. If that's not a campaign prop, not sure what is.

Then Barry kicks them back to boarding school. Not to be seen until the next camera opportunity.

Ok, they're just in it for the lolz. Did you think you somehow contradicted that by pointing out that SomethingAwful has a subscription fee? It only costs $10/year, and it just keeps the site running. They have no ads, but a huge amount of traffic.

mantis, if you think ugly, over-the-top bashing of children and women is "funny", then perhaps psycho-analysis is just what is needed. I suggest some medications for the misanthropic social awkwardness as well.

My point is that they think it's funny, and that is their motivation. Nice try, though.

The original photoshop was intended to mock some Alaskan politician who has the hots for Palin, not to mock Trig. Seriously, can someone please explain how this was "mocking a special needs baby"? Is the mere act of altering a photo equivalent to mocking a baby? It's a ridiculous premise, one that Palin has done a masterful job of milking for every last bit of attention.

Palin is the despicable one here. Trig has Down's syndrome because his mother had unprotected sex at an age that has a high chance of birth defects. Then she uses her poor son as a political prop. And when people or web sites call her out on it she whines it's desecration of her Messiah Child and tools like yourself start barking.

"The same way BHO paraded his kids out with his shaved wookie of a wife?"

My guess is one of BHO's kids would be a crack whore and knocked up a long, long time before Bristol. As for his "shaved wookie of a wife," if her ass gets any bigger it will have its own zip code. Yeah, anyone can do bile like this all day long. It only is acceptable when a tedious, single-issue gay blogger or some other diseased and deranged piece of shit flings it at the Palins.

Pray that the 5 year-old child receives the love and support he will need to grow up strong and live in peace.

My name is Keith Smith. I was abducted, beaten and raped by a stranger. It wasn't a neighbor, a coach, a relative, a family friend or teacher. It was a recidivist pedophile predator who spent time in prison for previous sex crimes; an animal hunting for victims in the quiet suburbs of Lincoln, Rhode Island.

I was able to identify the guy and the car he was driving. He was arrested and indicted but never went to trial. His trial never took place because he was brutally beaten to death in Providence before his court date. 34 years later, no one has ever been charged with the crime.

In the time between the night of my assault and the night he was murdered, I lived in fear. I was afraid he was still around town. Afraid he was looking for me. Afraid he would track me down and kill me. The fear didn’t go away when he was murdered. Although he was no longer a threat, the simple life and innocence of a 14-year-old boy was gone forever. Carefree childhood thoughts replaced with the unrelenting realization that my world wasn’t a safe place. My peace shattered by a horrific criminal act of sexual violence.

Over the past 34 years, I’ve been haunted by horrible, recurring memories of what he did to me. He visits me in my sleep. There have been dreams–nightmares actually–dozens of them, sweat inducing, yelling-in-my-sleep nightmares filled with images and emotions as real as they were when it actually happened. It doesn’t get easier over time. Long dead, he still visits me, silently sneaking up from out of nowhere when I least expect it. From the grave, he sits by my side on the couch every time the evening news reports a child abduction or sex crime. I don’t watch America’s Most Wanted or Law and Order SVU, because the stories are a catalyst, triggering long suppressed emotions, feelings, memories, fear and horror. Real life horror stories rip painful suppressed memories out from where they hide, from that recessed place in my brain that stores dark, dangerous, horrible memories. It happened when William Bonin confessed to abducting, raping and murdering 14 boys in California; when Jesse Timmendequas raped and murdered Megan Kanka in New Jersey; when Ben Ownby, missing for four days, and Shawn Hornbeck, missing for four years, were recovered in Missouri.

Despite what happened that night and the constant reminders that continue to haunt me years later, I wouldn’t change what happened. The animal that attacked me was a serial predator, a violent pedophile trolling my neighborhood in Lincoln, Rhode Island looking for young boys. He beat me, raped me, and I stayed alive. I lived to see him arrested, indicted and murdered. It might not have turned out this way if he had grabbed one of my friends or another kid from my neighborhood. Perhaps he’d still be alive. Perhaps there would be dozens of more victims and perhaps he would have progressed to the point of silencing his victims by murdering them.

Out of fear, shame and guilt, I’ve been silent for over three decades, not sharing with anyone the story of what happened to me. No more. The silence has to end. What happened to me wasn't my fault. The fear, the shame, the guilt have to go. It’s time to stop keeping this secret from the people closest to me, people I care about, people I love, my long-time friends and my family. It’s time to speak out to raise public awareness of male sexual assault, to let other survivors know that they’re not alone and to help survivors of rape and violent crime understand that the emotion, fear and memories that may still haunt them are not uncommon to those of us who have shared a similar experience.

My novel, Men in My Town, was inspired by these actual events. Men in My Town is available now at www.Amazon.com

For those who suffer in silence, I hope my story brings some comfort, strength, peace and hope.

For additional information, please visit the Men in My Town blog at www.meninmytown.wordpress.com

Perhaps Ken Layne and the majority of Americans don't like Sarah Palin because she is a stupid, willfully ignorant, petty, vindictive, narcissitic, hateful, and reactionary c*nt, did you consider that? Also, Stacy, can you be more of a closet case? If you are going to be pulling a Larry Craig or a Bob Allen, I'd reccommend traveling to Argentina or some other overseas location.

Perhaps Ken Layne and the majority of Americans don't like Sarah Palin because she is a stupid, willfully ignorant, petty, vindictive, narcissitic, hateful, and reactionary c*nt, did you consider that?

I would challenge you point by point, but I fear the result would be similar to the arguments I have with my dog.

Yeah, he's smarter than you too.

But we're getting the picture, guys: "You shouldn't call someone gay because it's a horrible insult because there's nothing wrong with it, and besides, if you say that you must be gay because I don't like you." Keep up the good work, Liberal Debate Team.

Are the 3 faces of Eve posting under the screen name "anonymous" I'm confused. Anonymous comes off as a male libertarian truck driving straight wife who is laughing while horribly offended by McCain's post. Maybe it's Meghan McCain .Mantis, are you really Alan Colmes. Just wondering.

As I read the comments here, I either see "you're a bigot" (yah? big deal! so are you ya douchenozzle!If you weren't you'd be able to understand my side of the arguement), or else they say that you're "projecting".Have you ever noticed that the nasty cocksuckers will always try and make you "one of them" by saying you're a meat gazing butt pirate in secret?

To all you buttsurfing ass maggots who use the purile "I know I am but what are you" defense for their fucked up lifestyle I can only say "not hardly".

and no, I'm not a homophobe. I have a good pal who's gay, successful and pretty good natured. He doesn't get offended by my hetro'ness. I just enjoy pissing you liberals off. I figure if you can attack Trig..I can attack you..and the 2 daddys and test tube you had for a mother.

Hmph. Love the "she brought her kids with her on the campaign so that means she's using them as props so it's okay to be disgusting idiots and attack her kids" commenters.

Yes, the big bad Sarah made you miscreants do it. Poor babies. You sound even more pathetic than the "someone said rude things about Chelsea fifteen years ago so we'll claim everyone remotely conservative liked that and use it as an excuse for our massive slander campaign against Sarah Palin's children" folks. Yeah, and a firecracker is just like a MOAB.

Overall I think you are laughably off base about gay men not liking women. As you mention I am a proudly gay man. Not only do I have a child with a woman, almost all my friends are women, and I have slept with a (lesbian) woman and found sex with a woman to be not the least bit repulsive and even somewhat erotic. But not as much as I enjoy sex with men, and simply not really my cup of tea. I am sure if I lived in on a desert island I could engage in some heterosexual activity rather than have no sex at all.

I don't think you should write about things you don't know much about. Why act like a regressive demwit?

Fewer and fewer gay men use words like "fag hag,""fsh," etc. I am happy to have you tell people who use such terms (along with "breeder") that they are classless, and perhaps slightly emotionally disturbed, cretins. I believe they are a small minority.

Trot your kids out as human shields for your backwards and harmful claims and you should expect to get hit by some mud balls -- I blame Palin for the whole thing -- if she would have left the kid with the nanny none of this would have happened

Hit the tip jar, you ungrateful bastards!

Understand Liberalism

"When R.S. McCain talks about gonzo journalism, he knows what he’s talking about."-- Chapomatic"You are reading Robert every day, aren’t you? If you aren’t, you’re missing out, folks. The guy brings the good stuff every day."-- Jimmie, The Sundries Shack

". . . the one-of-a-kind Robert Stacy McCain, whose blog should be on your must-read list, if it isn't already."-- Dyspeptic Mutterings

"The most enthusiastic blogger I have yet to meet."-- Pam Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The guy has to be the hardest working dude in DC. I've yet to meet someone here he doesn't know."-- Dan Riehl, Riehl World View

"One of the most important conservative writers working today."--Donald Douglas"For what it's worth, the man can also hold his liquor better than most; that's probably how he gets his scoops."-- Little Miss Atilla